Going to the very heart of Zen.

November 30, 2011

I have the sneaking suspicion that Westerners who want to share their love of science with Tibetan monks (this is happening at Emory University) have found a clever way to attack Buddhism without overtly attacking its principles. By this I mean these Westerners are selling Scientism to Tibetan monks which is really selling a species of materialism that is inimical to the overall teachings of the Buddha. First, let’s look at the definition of “Scientism” which comes from the Oxford English Dictionary.

“A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences.”

What strikes me about this definition is the expression “physical science” which discloses a particular kind of science which is selling materialism. In is not science, per se, which the O.E.D. defines this way:

“The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute.”

The object of any physical science must exist materially in order to be known. This is to say, a physical science’s object must have location and shape in order for it to be known. This is different than living systems, or the same, having life, which falls into the spiritual.

From the canon, we learn that the Buddha shows no positive interest in what exists materially since it is finite and ultimately, empty and illusory. What concerns the Buddha is the substance or essential nature of life, itself, which is dynamic and without location (it has other names in Buddhism such as One Mind, Buddha-nature, Suchness, etc.). In addition, he is concerned with those who have life, that is, sattvas, who wrongly cling to material structures in the belief that such can be a refuge from suffering.

One would be accurate to say that the Buddha, if he were alive today, would not be a fan of Scientism, which indirectly champions materialism. Teaching science in the form of Scientism to Tibetan monks is the thin end of the materialist wedge. Again, I stress the Buddha did not teach any form of materialism. Noteworthy, the Buddha declares in the Lankavatara Sutra:

“Analysed down to atoms, there is indeed no form to be discriminated as such; what can be established is the [truth of] Mind-only, which is not believed by those who cherish erroneous views” (trans. D.T. Suzuki).

If this is unsatisfying to the modern ear then this quote from Max Planck, the great pioneer of quantum physics, might help.

“There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter (Dieser Geist ist der Urgrund aller Materie).”

November 29, 2011

Sentient beings entangled in samsara never pass over into nirvana for a good reason. From the perspective of Zen we can think of samsara as being the unawakened mind that is blindly entangled in its phenomena, forever craving and seeking to be what it is not. On the same track, it is awakened Mind that frees itself from samsara realizing nirvana which is increate. The commentary to the Pali Udana underscores this.

“For it is due to the release (vimokkhena) of the mind (cittassa) that a being is spoken of as “liberated” (vimutto). For there is said: “It is through cleansing the mind (citta) that beings are purified (S.iii.151) and “(Just when your) mind (cittam) becames released (mutto) from the âsavas without clinging” (Ud 24)” (UdA 223–224).

All sentient beings are not liberated. All have fallen into samsara by craving or desiring Mind’s appearances which are completely empty and illusory. In the final analysis, sentient beings constantly reinforce the life of samsara—not nirvana.

The belief that samsara will eventually turn into nirvana, just as a ball of string eventually unwinds itself when going downhill, is a belief that is not found in Buddhism—in fact, it goes against Buddhism. It was a theory advanced by a contemporary of the Buddha, Makkhali Gosala. He believed that everyone eventually becomes purified in samsara (he was considered to be one of the worst sophists by the Buddha).

When we take into consideration just how we become entangled in samsara, it stands to reason that we cannot sit around and do nothing expecting nirvana. Even just sitting doing nothing, the Buddha Mind, which we have not yet realized, is constantly being occluded by our desires and previous karma. We don’t understand that the substance of Mind is so pure and subtle that the slightest desire occludes and hides its pure nature from us. Once again, we fall back into samsara.

November 28, 2011

It is a very important belief of materialists that there is no life after death—no afterlife, in other words. They reason that since our consciousness arises from the brain it is impossible for our consciousness to survive after the death of the brain. Furthermore, we know that consciousness arises from the brain because living brains usually always exhibit consciousness!

For the true believers of materialism spirituality is impossible since there is only matter. Materialists insist that we live, so to speak, in a Newtonian mechanical universe. Humans, therefore, are mechanical, spiritless beings. Their death is of no consequence. It’s a long dirt nap from which there is no awakening.

For those who believe that spirit is primary (like the Buddha), matter is nothing more than phenomenalized or crystalized spirit. When death occurs, the primary system (spirit) is undisturbed by the collapse of the secondary, phenomenalized system. In essence, the secondary system, that is, the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), is a product of the primary system having been willed out which is an immateriall action. The Buddha says, in fact:

"The five grasping aggregates are previously composed and willed out (purvam abhisamskrtany abhisañcetitani), and to be known as former karma” (SA, 260, 65c-66a).

Death is really a radical change in which spirit becomes engaged with different phenomena, but more likely, far less dense than before.

Which philosophy is the correct one cannot be easily resolved except to say that truth is not one sided. The highest truth admits a world of particulars but also realizes the universal substance of this plurality as well. Materialism only sees the particulars.

November 27, 2011

It almost goes without saying that ontology can easily fall into a world of metaphysical abstractions or the same, intellectual speculation. It is only with mysticism that ontology finds its rightful place which is direct communion with what is most real, i.e., the absolute substance, apart from its phenomenalizations/differentiations.

From this we can say that concealment of the real is nowhere more obvious than in our phenomenal world and this present life we lead; and the limit of the phenomenal world and its life is nowhere else to be found except in the direct mystical experience of true reality which transcends it. Anything else is an exercise in self-delusion which is also to say that sensory consciousness cannot perceive true reality. It is adequate for everyday reality but that is as far as it goes.

So after this somewhat long introduction, how far does modern Buddhism go as far as being a process of self-delusion? For example, the common Zen practice of just sitting seems to fall into the category of self-delusion more than mystical communion. Is every ernest sitter suddenly catapulted into nirvanic bliss by just sitting on a stuffed pillow? It hardly seems possible. True reality is concealed by our temporal body and the thoughts which race through it. It is not possible that sitting takes us out of the enclosed samsaric world. Wisdom or prajñâ is not so easily won by sitting on one’s ass!

I know that my words cannot stop the intention of those caught up in impossible dreams and practices. Delusion is a monster. It rules because it provides us with both a seeming path and a seeming enlightenment which only keep us smack-dab in samsara, that is, phenomenalized reality. One of the surest indications of this is when mysticism is attacked or ignored as if there is really no such thing as gaining access to absolute substance or pure Mind—we need only to just sit.

November 23, 2011

Okay, I am really getting tired of seeing the trade mark sign ™ starting to appear in Zen from Big Mind™ Zen to Mondo Zen™. So I have come up with Sfatto™ Zen! Yeah!

“Sfatto” which is an Italian word is very difficult to translate into English. It, more or less, can mean "unkept," "sloppy," "disheveled," "unmade," etc. Just imagine an unmade bed with the sheets every which way. This is sfatto.

If I had to define Sfatto™ Zen, it is everything that modern Zen is not. It is completely laid back and profound. There is no regimentation; no neat rows of zazen-ers trying to keep still or stop a fart. Everyone just sort of lays around in the Sfatto™ Zendo. Their only intention is to find pure Mind, that is, to have a genuine engagement with the absolute or Suchness (tathata).

The Sfatto™ Zen Roshi, if we can call him that, is a dude—a grand dude (or a grand dudette). His official robe is his bath robe. The grand dude or "GD" (it could also be GOD as in Grand Old Dude) has seen pure Mind who expresses its dynamism in his everyday conduct from cracking a fart, to gratuitously laughing. Such conduct might include eating a huge bowl of ramen noodles, making all kinds of sucking sounds.

The GD could be modeled after the legendary Hotei (10th century) who was one laid back eccentric Zen dude. He carried around a huge hemp beggars sack and laughed a lot (whoa, was that dude ever high!).

Other famous Sfatto™ Zennists might included Kanzan and Jittoku (7th century).

Although, I have the feeling that Sfatto™ Zen is not going to be popular because Western Zennists seem to enjoy the strict regimentation of Japanese Zen which presents a picture of being neat and formal, I believe there is a niche for Sfatto™ Zen where people can lay around and seriously discuss Buddhism for a change and, if they want, drink macchiatos or cappuccinos—or maybe have a little wine with some good cheese.

November 22, 2011

It does not matter that Gautama the Buddha actually existed. The fact is that his teachings, composed by other minds or authentic, have been advanced by many people—and are still being advanced. This is the reality of Buddhism that we must deal with. It matters not if we cannot prove the Buddha’s actual existence unlike the problem Christians are faced with if the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth from a virgin, crucification and resurrection cannot be proved to have actually taken place.

What we have of Buddhism, in its huge canon, is a path that teaches us that the substance of reality can be intuited by us thereby freeing us from our bondage to the world of phenomena (including rebirth) which endlessly rises and ceases, again and again, bringing nothing but suffering.

If anyone intuits such a substance, after studying the canon of Buddhism, Buddhism, as a teaching, is validated in much the same way that the Socratic method is of great value even though we cannot prove that Socrates was an actual person who lived in Athens.

November 21, 2011

For pop Buddhists like Stephen Batchelor (author of Buddhism Without Beliefs) and his minions, belief or faith can be, and often is, a nasty word. Belief or faith is often taken to be a religious term. But as far as real Buddhism or real science is concerned belief is the kindergarten stage leading to correct understanding. It is a first step of many steps in other words.

If researchers, for example, didn't believe than cancer is curable then why research it? What might be the purpose of research without a firm belief in a cure? Back in the early 1960s, if I had not firmly believed that pure Mind was attainable, being my ordinary thoughts in an agitated, oscillating form, I wouldn't have spent so many years trying to discover such a Mind through meditation (dhyana).

Unlike some of the hare brains who claim to be Buddhists but who refuse to believe that pure Mind is the very substance of the universe, my belief—the kindergarten stage—helped to free me from spiritual ignorance and eventually helped me to realize that the Buddha's teachings are pointing to pure Mind.

While it is true that many beliefs don’t take us beyond the kindergarten level which, over time, can turn into dogma so that one becomes a “true believer” belief, in general, is always calling on us to advance; to search for the truth; to see the way things really are—not just hoping that our beliefs are somehow right without further testing.

November 20, 2011

The Scole Experiment provides the uninformed and deniers with more than satisfactory scientific evidence that there is life after death. Witnessed by trained scientists and paranormal debunkers including hundreds of visitors the Scole Experiment proves to be a watershed moment in our understanding of life after death.

For the materialists among us, it is a shocking revelation; one that throws materialists into a state of cognitive dissonance. For Buddhists the Scole Experiment offers a chance to rid Buddhism of the materialists who are presently trying to take control of Buddhism, putting in its place a counterfeit, materialistic Dharma. These Buddhist materialists need to be exposed who will be the ones challenging the Scole Experiment.

I have read the book, The Scole Experiment by Grant & Jane Solomon. For those who haven't this documentary will be of great help in understanding what the experient was really about. It will no doubt cause the materialists and Buddhist materialists to wrestle with their beliefs, one important one being the brain is consciousness, or the same, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the physical brain.

November 17, 2011

Early on in the history of Buddhism, the Mahasanghikas argued that mind has a pure nature although it is otherwise for those who have not seen mind's pure nature. This pure nature is unconditioned and eternal whereas the conditioned (sanskrita) mind is one of defilements which serve to hide and obscure the pure nature of mind.

In the absolute sense, while there is only One Mind (ekacitta), hence, only one universal substance, it is not so constituted that its unconditioned nature is easy to observe and engage with. In fact, all that we are aware of is conditioned mind, including a conditioned world. This conditioned mind is momentary and changing whether we are engaged in internal dialogue or thinking about something. It is always going from being/arising to non-being/ceasing then back to being again.

Paradoxically, we are mind's pure nature which can't seem to find itself in its being and non-being oscillations, or the same, find itself in its own modifications. No matter how hard we try, we come up short of our intrinsic pure nature meeting with itself such that it can distinguish (prajñâ) itself from its oscillations ending its confusion (avidya).

To make any real progress in Buddhism means that we must begin to try and see our own pure nature, that is, pure Mind. Dharma centers can't help; neither can zazen which is little more than a ritual that honors the Buddha's awakening under the Bodhi-tree. We have to get our head around the proper course of action to take if we are to really advance in Buddhism. The only proper course of action is for us, in the midst of a defiled mind which is always conditioned, is to connect with the nature of mind, or the same pure Mind, which is totally conditionless.

November 16, 2011

One major difference between early Chinese Zen and Western forms of thought is that Chinese Zen and before it, Indian Buddhism, took aim at the very substance of reality. They were not content to tarry on the scaffolding of metaphysics and other abstract forms of thought (e.g., mathematical thought). A fit example of this, imagine sitting in a science class asking the teacher a question like this: “Just what exactly is space made of?” or, “What is the smallest chunk of matter made of?” We know that science has only makeshift answers for such questions, perhaps because the real answer is too ontological bordering on William Kingdon Clifford’s “mind-stuff”. But for Chinese Zennists and Indian Buddhists there was an answer—a very definite answer that went far beyond language and figurative thinking, including the senses.

I should say at this point, this is what Buddhism is all about. We have to discover the fundamental substance of reality from which all things are composed. This assumes, of course, that we are implicitly this substance but don’t as yet know it, the reason being it is far too pure to detect; devoid of characteristics. The only consolation we have, since the absolute cannot detect itself as something determinate, is that it can agitate itself creating antitheses. This opens up the door to the possibility that the antithetical world, which is always arising and ceasing has a limit. Thus, at the precise moment of cessation (nirodha) we can mystically detect pure substance which is really an awakening as to what our real nature is and has always been (this is a return-to-self).

Certainly, the West doesn’t want to go here nor do Western religions. These religions prefer to worship a demiurge remaining bewitched by his creation which ever revolves around suffering. In this regard, Buddhism is much different. This becomes apparent when the Sixth Patriarch of Zen, Hui-neng, describes his enlightenment. He said, “I at once became thoroughly enlightened, and realised that all things in the universe are the Essence of Mind itself” (trans., Mou-Lam, The Sutra of Wei Lang (1953), pp. 19–20). Hui-neng then goes on to say:

Who would have thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically self-sufficient! Who would have thought that the Essence of Mind is intrinsically free from change! Who would have thought that all things are the manifestation of the Essence of Mind” (ibid., p. 20).